HAVING been a member of the Castle-Piccadilly Reference Group in 2004, I always was a little bit worried that eventually someone would say that the Reference Group had some responsibility for the new planning brief.

This is too much of a simplification in your Diary article (December 19) and I would like to make the position a little clearer.

The Reference Group carried out discussions which were led by a facilitator appointed by City of York Council, who guided the topics discussed. While it was generally useful for people to come together and share their different points of view, several members objected at the time to the fact that the facilitator concentrated on refining subsidiary topics which are not fundamentally contentious, while leaving unexplored some of the most basic stepping stones to achieving consensus on what should actually take place, and how.

As a result, the Reference Group was no more than a sounding board for the views of certain groups. It was carefully denied the opportunity to "work together to fashion something" - in the sense that specific proposals for what should happen were outside the framework of discussion. In particular, the Reference Group was not allowed to discuss the retail study which was obtained by the council at the same time as the group was meeting.

The planning brief has been prepared entirely by the council and not by the Reference Group. The planning brief relies very heavily on the retail study which the group did not discuss, and in respect of which there are some serious reservations.

As a member of the Reference Group I have objected to the planning brief and believe that it should not be adopted in its present form.

Andrew Eccles,

Holly Tree House,

Harwood Road,

Northminster Business Park,

York.

Updated: 10:55 Thursday, December 22, 2005